Post by The Big Dog on Nov 15, 2008 10:47:39 GMT -5
See if you can place the authorship of this quote...
Prop. 8 has run it's electoral course in California. Now we have to wait and see whether the state's Supreme Court has the testicular fortitude to once again step in front of the will of the voters. Time will tell.
I recall how the gays and the left have opined that the proponents of 8, hence the resistance to further attack on the traditionalist view of marriage, were motivated mainly out of fear fomented by organized religious organizations such as the Catholic and Mormon churches. We were lectured endlessly here in this forum that these fears were irrational and how dare anyone stand in the way of progress. God, or the belief in a Christian God, has no place in public debate, so it would seem.
What is interesting, to me, is how times change. During the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's, we were told by those leading the charge that traditional morality was irrelevant. Do what feels good with whomever it feels good with. Remember the Haight-Ashbury and the Summer of Love? I do as I was living in the city. Tom Wolfe, in his book Hooking Up noted of that time that doctors in the free clinic re-discovered diseases "no living doctor had encountered before, diseases that had disappeared so long ago that they had never even picked up Latin names, diseases such as the mange, the grunge, the itch, the twitch, the thrush, the scroff, the rot."
Why do we suppose that was? Traditional morality was totally out the window in the Summer of Love, and some people there became proof that some rules and customs within our traditional values were there for a good reason.
Do I want to turn back the hands of time and forget the sexual revolution ever happened? No. Nor do I argue that women's rights, birth control and even open homosexuality have to go away. I'd like to believe that we, as a society, can find ways to deal with these sorts of issues calmly and rationally, but it seems to not be happening that way.
The quote at the top of this piece, by the way, is from a book written by that great and open minded free thinker, Adolph Hitler. And in the 90's many gay radicals were declaring war on marriage because it was an "oppressive force". Echoes of Adolph... or so it would seem.
The upshot of all that radicalism was California's domestic partnership laws created a special class of social benefits for gay couples. These were demanded and won by gays, both radical and less so, who in their own recent past were so openly and selfishly promiscuous as a group they did more to spread a disease that has killed their friends and families in appalling numbers. Proving yet again the value of some societal customs. Now the thrust for the gays, both radical and less so, is for "traditional marriage", but why?
This begs the question... what changed for them?
Given that the gays have already won at no small cost a special class of citizenship for themselves, with rights and privileges not accorded to straights, they now want to reject it all and enter into a traditional institution?
Are they wanting to go all conservative on us?
"Marriage, as it is practiced in bourgeois society, is generally a thing against nature. But a meeting between two beings who complete one another, who are made for one another, borders already, in my conception, upon a miracle."
Prop. 8 has run it's electoral course in California. Now we have to wait and see whether the state's Supreme Court has the testicular fortitude to once again step in front of the will of the voters. Time will tell.
I recall how the gays and the left have opined that the proponents of 8, hence the resistance to further attack on the traditionalist view of marriage, were motivated mainly out of fear fomented by organized religious organizations such as the Catholic and Mormon churches. We were lectured endlessly here in this forum that these fears were irrational and how dare anyone stand in the way of progress. God, or the belief in a Christian God, has no place in public debate, so it would seem.
What is interesting, to me, is how times change. During the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's, we were told by those leading the charge that traditional morality was irrelevant. Do what feels good with whomever it feels good with. Remember the Haight-Ashbury and the Summer of Love? I do as I was living in the city. Tom Wolfe, in his book Hooking Up noted of that time that doctors in the free clinic re-discovered diseases "no living doctor had encountered before, diseases that had disappeared so long ago that they had never even picked up Latin names, diseases such as the mange, the grunge, the itch, the twitch, the thrush, the scroff, the rot."
Why do we suppose that was? Traditional morality was totally out the window in the Summer of Love, and some people there became proof that some rules and customs within our traditional values were there for a good reason.
Do I want to turn back the hands of time and forget the sexual revolution ever happened? No. Nor do I argue that women's rights, birth control and even open homosexuality have to go away. I'd like to believe that we, as a society, can find ways to deal with these sorts of issues calmly and rationally, but it seems to not be happening that way.
The quote at the top of this piece, by the way, is from a book written by that great and open minded free thinker, Adolph Hitler. And in the 90's many gay radicals were declaring war on marriage because it was an "oppressive force". Echoes of Adolph... or so it would seem.
The upshot of all that radicalism was California's domestic partnership laws created a special class of social benefits for gay couples. These were demanded and won by gays, both radical and less so, who in their own recent past were so openly and selfishly promiscuous as a group they did more to spread a disease that has killed their friends and families in appalling numbers. Proving yet again the value of some societal customs. Now the thrust for the gays, both radical and less so, is for "traditional marriage", but why?
This begs the question... what changed for them?
Given that the gays have already won at no small cost a special class of citizenship for themselves, with rights and privileges not accorded to straights, they now want to reject it all and enter into a traditional institution?
Are they wanting to go all conservative on us?
Whatever.